BREAKING: 𝕏 wins lawsuit against Australia’s eSafety Commissioner. Elon Musk’s 𝕏 has secured a major victory in Australia’s Federal Court. The eSafety Commissioner argued that 𝕏 should be regulated under two separate online safety systems because the platform offers DMs and encrypted chat, potentially subjecting it to stricter requirements and penalties of up to A$49.5 million. Justice Elizabeth Raper rejected that argument, ruling that 𝕏 cannot be classified as both a “social media service” and a “relevant electronic service.” A major win for 𝕏 against regulatory overreach.

There is a story from the Second World War that everyone should know. On the 20th of December 1943, a German fighter pilot named Franz Stigler had an American B17 bomber directly in his sights. It was crippled, barely flying, shot to pieces, an easy kill. A tiny pressure on the trigger would have finished it. But as Stigler flew closer he looked through the torn metal of the fuselage and saw something that changed everything. He didn’t see an enemy. He saw a young crew, wounded, terrified, completely defenceless. And he made a decision that could have had him executed by his own side. He refused to fire. Instead he flew alongside the bomber and escorted it safely out of danger, all the way to open water, so it stood a chance of getting home. Then he peeled away and left them with a salute. Decades later, Stigler and the American pilot he had spared, Charlie Brown, found one another again. They became the closest of friends for the rest of their lives. That is the part people don’t expect. Two men who should have been each other’s enemy, brought together by one act of mercy, ending up as family to one another. No matter what they do to convince us we should hate each other. No matter how many ways they find to send our sons off to kill one another. When it comes down to it, when it is one man looking at another man, decency wins. Compassion wins. Humanity wins. We saw it on Christmas Day 1914, in the middle of the First World War. British and German soldiers climbed out of their trenches in no man’s land, shook hands, exchanged small gifts, sang carols together, and by played a friendly game of soccer. The next day they were ordered back to killing each other. But for one day the men worked out for themselves what their leaders never wanted them to realise, that the person on the other side was just like them. The inhumanity never comes from the soldiers. It never comes from the men actually facing each other. It comes from the faceless bureaucrats sitting safely behind desks and the money men sitting in darkened meeting rooms, deciding to send other people’s sons to die for wars they will never fight themselves. We have had enough. Enough of the wars, enough of the manufactured hatred, enough of the central bankers treating human lives like numbers on a page. Stories like Stigler and Brown remind us that decency was never actually lost. It was just buried under decisions made by people who never had to look the enemy in the eye. Enough now. They’re not our fights. Enough.

Humans come in all shapes and sizes. Some are intelligent, some are stupid and some are genuinely malicious. People disagree about politics, religion, morality, and almost everything else, but there is one principle every sane person should understand: when someone is being attacked from every direction, especially by people they never attacked in the first place, you should at least stop and ask why? What is going on here? If I punch someone in the face and they punch me back, the responsibility starts with me because I initiated the conflict. That is simple cause and effect. But if random groups of people suddenly start attacking me when I never attacked them in the first place and their only justification is that I questioned an organization or its leadership because I believe they are not being fully honest then any rational person should immediately start asking questions. Why are these people so emotionally invested? Are they ideologically driven, financially motivated, coordinated behind the scenes, or simply acting in the interests of the same network of people? Otherwise, why would they aggressively attack someone who never attacked them personally? Especially in a country where personal conflict is avoided like the plague and passive-aggressiveness is in fashion. Why would they deliberately seek out personal conflict when they seemingly have no dog in the fight? That is basic logic. So why is Candace Owens being attacked by people she never attacked? Even someone with minimal common sense should be asking that question. And this is after she was fired, her friend was killed and somehow she’s the one attacked for what exactly? Having a show in which she asks questions most Americans would like to ask the leadership of this country? Is that what triggers these people? The answer is - YES! They are triggered by people who ask difficult questions. Why would a popular host like her, someone Americans genuinely enjoy listening to and support (a fact based on numbers), be attacked by a handful of weird individuals in a very coordinated manner? Popularity and public support are measured by numbers, and numbers usually reflect one important metric: honesty! Ben Shapiro learned that the hard way. So why is it that a host who is so obviously supported by the public still gets relentlessly attacked by certain people? Their excuse is always the same: “Erika Kirk was attacked, so now we’re attacking Candace.” Suddenly the same people who excuse corruption, hypocrisy, defend genocide in Gaza and institutional failure at every opportunity have discovered a moral conscience overnight. Now they present themselves as noble defenders of justice and protectors of Erika Kirk. Amazing! Candace Owens apparently performs miracles. She somehow transformed some of the worlds’ most cynical and self-interested people into passionate warriors for morality and for this widow Erika! People who would normally destroy others for the sake of self-preservation and have done so before, are suddenly deeply concerned about someone else’s well-being. Or maybe the explanation is far simpler: these people are connected, coordinated, and protecting the same interests behind the scenes, the same entrenched elites. That explanation makes far more sense doesn't it? Let’s be clear about something important: Candace Owens did not accuse anyone of murder. She asked questions and tried to connect the dots when nothing made sense. That is all. And I have to say she is much nicer than I am. If someone murder my best friend and then some group of people started attacking me for wanting to find out what happened to my friend - asking questions and connecting the dots would be the least of their worries. I'm not as nice as Candace. Candace Owens never accused Brian Harpole of killing Charlie Kirk, at least not to my knowledge, yet Brian Harpole is suing her for defamation. Defamation means making false statements that damage someone’s reputation. Brian Are you sure it was Candace who damaged your reputation? Or maybe it had something to do with your shortcomings when the person you were protecting was killed? Maybe that’s when people started seeing you as an incompetent ass? So where/what exactly was the false statement Candace made? Asking whether security failed at an event where the person being protected ended up dead is that the statement? That can not possibly be ground for defamation, it is a completely reasonable question because security failed Charlie is dead!!! What was Brian Harpole’s job? His job was to protect Charlie Kirk. Was Charlie Kirk protected that day? No. Charlie Kirk is dead. You f***g moron you and entire team miserably failed at your jobs that is why Charlie is dead. That is not an opinion. That is an undeniable fact the guy you were supposed to protect is dead! Or maybe we are missing something and you were not tasked with Charlie's protection at all? Maybe you were there to dance ballet before the event even started. I don’t know, am I missing something here? please educate us! If the person you were assigned to protect dies under your watch, then the security failed. PERIOD! That failure may not mean murder, but he is dead because of the failure! That is true in every country, every language, and every functioning reality! And this is where the lawsuit becomes absurd. A man whose protection team failed and got Charlie killed is now suing a podcaster because she questioned whether security at the event was handled properly. Think about how irrational that is. Brian, if you ever wanted to restore credibility or be taken seriously again professionally, as a body guard the correct action would have been very different. You should have gone on Shawn Ryan’s show and apologized to the American people and to Charlie’s family for the failures in security detail that day. That is what accountability looks like. Instead, you chose lawsuits and public attacks. And now, rather than being remembered as someone who took responsibility after a tragedy, you will be remembered as the bodyguard who failed at his job and then sued one of Charlie’s friends for questioning it. That is the legacy you are creating for yourself.

You are paid to be evil! You're praising this? Notice is hereby provided regarding the calculated legal maneuvers initiated by Erika Kirk to secure personal ownership over the intellectual property, name, and likeness of her late husband, Charles J. Kirk. These actions represent a transparent attempt to prioritize personal commercial enrichment over the selfless stewardship of a family’s legacy. THE TRADEMARK FILINGS BY ERIKA KIRK On October 4, 2025, Erika Kirk moved to bypass the established Kirk Family Trust by filing for personal ownership of the following federal trademarks: CHARLIE KIRK (Serial Number: 99427865): A filing by Erika Kirk to claim the decedent’s name as a personal commercial asset. CHARLIE KIRK (Serial Number: 99427868): An application by Erika Kirk targeting Education and Entertainment Services, intended to capture revenue from media and advocacy for her private benefit. A BREACH OF MORAL AND LEGAL STEWARDSHIP The pursuit of these trademarks by Erika Kirk reveals a prioritized desire to monetize a tragedy. The legal and ethical challenges to these filings rest on the following: Personal Enrichment vs. Heir Protection: By filing in her personal capacity, Erika Kirk has signaled an intent to control the financial fruits of Charlie’s life’s work individually, rather than securing them for his minor children. Commercial Conversion of Identity: Erika Kirk’s filings across multiple classes—including clothing, media, and fundraising—constitute an attempt to monopolize a public identity for private gain. CURRENT PROCEDURAL STATUS AND THE LEGAL CHALLENGE As of late April 2026, these trademarks have not been approved. They remain under active dispute and have been suspended by the USPTO. Crucially, Charlie Kirk’s parents, Robert and Kathryn Kirk, are aggressively fighting Erika Kirk’s attempts in court. Through their legal filings in Maricopa County, they are seeking to block her personal appropriation of these assets, arguing that Charlie’s name and the resulting revenue must be secured within the Family Trust for his children. The legal system continues to scrutinize Erika Kirk’s attempts to personally profit, as his parents stand as the final line of defense against the exploitation of their son's memory.

Lady Lindsay has gotta go. ""i'm a deeply closeted gay guy" -norm macdonald" - Lindsey Graham